New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Unretained Experts — Failure to Identify Specific Facts or Opinions = Inadequate Disclosure — Adversary Must Provide Disclosure for Cross-Designation of Expert If Evidence Different from Proponent’s Designation or Witness’s Deposition

Download PDF

Shepeard v. Labette Cnty. Med. Ctr., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31381 (D. Kan. Mar. 7, 2013):

Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel seeking supplemental information regarding Defendant's non-retained expert witness disclosures pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(C). Having reviewed the submissions of the parties, including the witness disclosures at issue, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff's motion.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(C) mandates that if a non-retained expert witness "is not required to provide a written report, this disclosure must state: (i) the subject matter on which the witness is expected to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705; and (ii) a summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify." Defendant accurately points out that "there is little to no guidance" in the context of case law as to "what constitutes a sufficient summary under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(C) that would obviate any danger of unfair surprise" regarding the potential factual and/or opinion testimony of non-retained witnesses. (Doc. 117-1 at 4.) Plaintiff generally argues, however, that Defendant has "failed to identify the subject matter" on which certain witnesses are to testify and "has made no attempt to summarize the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify." (Doc. 116, at 2.)

As to experts A - F, H, and I, all of whom provided various types of medical care to Plaintiff, Defendant has stated that they will "provide testimony on the facts at issue in this case . . . ." *** Clearly this is not a sufficient summary of facts as contemplated by Rule 26 for the simple reason that not a single fact is referenced beyond a passing, introductory reference to the general type of care the individuals provided. Defendant does little more in regard to the opinions on which these individuals will testify, generally referring to "medical opinions on all aspects of the case" (witnesses A, B), "expert opinions on paramedic care" (witnesses C, D, E, F), and "opinion testimony related" to care given as an air ambulance nurse (witnesses H, I). The Court finds this to be patently insufficient as no actual, specific opinions have been summarized or even referenced. Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED as to Defendant's disclosures regarding non-retained expert witnesses A - F, H, and I.

Conversely, the Court finds that Defendant's disclosures regarding witnesses G, L, and M are sufficient, albeit succinct. The individuals involved performed specific, identifiable tasks relating to the decedent and/or the accident at issue - the autopsy (witness G) and the responding to the accident (witnesses L, M). There were also reports/documents generated by these witnesses, which should provide Plaintiff with adequate information as to the involvement and relevant opinions of these witnesses. ... Plaintiff's motion is DENIED as to Defendant's disclosures regarding non-retained expert witnesses G, L, and M.

Finally, Defendant has designated two of Plaintiff's experts (witnesses J and K). In its witness disclosure, Defendant merely states that it "cross-designates . . . Plaintiff's retained expert witnesses." ... Plaintiff argues that this "does not relieve Defendant of its duty to follow the statute [sic] in making its designation." (Doc. 116, at 2.) Plaintiff continues that "if Defendant is going to illicit opinions beyond those expressed in the designations or in the depositions [of these witnesses], Plaintiff should have proper notice through compliance with the statutory requirements." (Id.) The Court agrees that Defendant's designation of these two individuals is in noncompliance with the mandates of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26. Plaintiff's motion is, therefore, GRANTED as to Defendant's disclosures regarding non-retained expert witnesses J and K.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

Criminal Spoliation Can Be A Due Process Violation — Defendant Must Show That (1) The Evidence Had Exculpatory Value Before It Was Destroyed, (2) Defendant Is Unable to Obtain Comparable Evidence by Reasonable Means, and (3) Bad Faith Failure to Preserve

1) Rule 11 Sanctions: “No First Amendment Exception to a Rule 11 Violation” — “[T]he First Amendment Covers Novel, Nonfrivolous Arguments, But Many Frivolous Arguments Are Also Novel” (Good Quotes) — Frivolous To Continue To Make Rejected Novel Arguments; (2) FRAP 38 Sanctions: District Court In Best Position to Set Sanctions, Attorney’s Fees and Costs

3 Prerequisites for Inherent Power and § 1927 Sanctions in Second Circuit: (1) Bad Faith, (2) Conduct That Is Entirely Without Color [Thus, An Ill-Motivated Colorable Position Appears to Be Protected in the Second Circuit], and (3) Improper Purpose— “To Gain A Strategic Advantage” Is An Improper Purpose — Due Process Satisfied by Opponent’s Motion and Multiple Court Conferences, After Which Target Was Allowed to Submit Additional Letters

Inherent Power Sanctions — Untimeliness as Laches — Laches Properly Applied to Deny Sanctions Motion — Note Waived Defenses to Laches

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions: Substantial Justification or Harmless Error (Ninth Circuit Factors) — Erie: When State Supreme Court Has Not Squarely Addressed an Issue, Circuit Must Predict How It Would Rule, Using Intermediate Appellate Decisions, Decisions from Other Jurisdictions, Statutes, Treatises And Restatements for Guidance

(1) Appellate Review of Inherent Power Sanctions (7th Circuit): Factual Findings Reviewed for Clear Error, Choice of Sanction for Abuse of Discretion — 4-Element Test for Reversal; (2) Sanctions and Class Actions: Monetary Sanctions Properly Imposed on Defendants for Improper Communications with Class Members (Represented Parties) — “[I]f The Class And The Class Opponent Are Involved In An Ongoing Business Relationship, Communications From The Class Opponent To The Class May Be Coercive” (Good Quote); (3) Monetary Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger: If Same Fact-Gathering Would Have Been Conducted Absent The Misconduct, No But-For Causation — But Only “Rough Justice” Required, “Not Accountant-Like Precision” (Good Quote) — Once Misconduct Is Clear, Time Spent Ferreting It Out Compensable under Goodyear; (4) Goodyear Did Not Overrule Long-Standing Rule That Courts May Impose Modest Civil Monetary Sanctions to Curb Litigation Abuse; (5) Appellate Jurisdiction Lacking Where Sanctioned Attorney Fails to File Notice of Appeal and Lawyer’s Intent to Appeal Not Apparent from Client’s Notice; (5) Rule 11 Improper Purpose — Party May Have Many Purposes for Pursuing Claim — As Long As Claim Is Supported by Good Faith Belief in the Merits, “A Parallel Reason Does Not Violate Rule 11” — To Deny A Motion for Sanctions, The District Court Need Not Address Every Argument: “Arguments Clearly Without Merit Can, And For The Sake Of Judicial Economy Should, Be Passed Over In Silence” (Good Quote); Non-Monetary Sanction on Counsel: Complete Twice The Required Amount Of Professional Responsibility Hours For Her Next Continuing Legal Education Cycle Imposed By The State Bar

(1) Spoliation: Sanctions Are Warranted Only If the Movant Establishes That A Reasonable Trier of Fact Could Find That The Destroyed Evidence Would Support A Claim Or Defense — § 1927 Sanctions: “Courts Often Refuse to Award Sanctions When Both Parties Contributed to the Waste of Judicial Resources” (Good Quote)

No Sanctions Imposed on Counsel Who Submitted A.I.-Generated Phony Cases Without Checking Them in Good Faith on The Mistaken Assumption They Had Been Provided by Highly Respected Co-Counsel Rather Than His Criminally-Convicted, Disbarred Client — No Sanctions on Client Who Had No Access to LEXIS or Westlaw to Check the Phony Cases and Submitted Them in Good Faith: “It Would Have Been Downright Irrational For Him To Provide Fake Cases For [His Lawyer] To Include In The Motion Knowing They Were Fake —

(1) Electronic Spoliation — Rule 37(e)(2) Dismissal Sanction — Temporal Proximity of Spoliation to Production Due Date = Circumstantial Evidence of Intent; (2) While Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Abuse Of Discretion, Findings Of Fact Related To Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Clear Error; (3) Dismissal under Rule 37(e)(2) Plus Attorney’s Fees under Inherent Power Appropriately Combined [But see 2015 Advisory Committee Note: “New Rule 37(e) … authorizes and specifies measures a court may employ if information that should have been preserved is lost, and specifies the findings necessary to justify these measures. forecloses reliance on inherent authority or state law to determine when certain measures should be used.”]; (4) Compensatory Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger Appropriately Include Fees and Costs Resulting from Attempts to Settle Spoliation Motion

(1) FRAP 38 Sanctions Inapt for Appeal That Is Weak — “Borderline Frivolous” — Test Is Whether Appellant Should Have Known the Appeal Had Absolutely No Chance of Success — (2) Lay Opinion Testimony under Rule 701: Nub of Helpfulness Requirement Is to Exclude Testimony When the Witness Is No Better Suited Than the Jury to Assess the Issue; (3) Appeals: No Appeal from Denial of Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law Unless Appellant Made That Motion Before Case Was Submitted to Jury

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice